Any experience with Alpha 6000?

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by rodeo_joe|1, Dec 15, 2017.

  1. I'm thinking of buying a used Sony a6000 with 16-50mm lens.
    Is there anything I should check/watch out for?

    Another local shop has an a6500 body only. Would that be a better buy?

    Any advice welcome. I'm totally unfamiliar with the Sony MLC range.
     
  2. Off the top of my head: the A6500 has IBIS, the A6000 does not. 4K video and touch screen are also on the A6500 only. Higher resolution viewfinder on the A6500. Don't expect much from the 16-50; I'd even have my reservations with regard to the much more expensive Zeiss 16-70/4. The only APS-C E-mount lens I owned was the Zeiss 24/1.8 - I liked it for the few days I owned it (moved up to an A7 and returned the lens); certainly would want to buy that one used as the price new is a bit steep.

    Sony has focused on their FE lenses in the recent years; IMO, their E-mount lens system for APS-C is rather incomplete and often of questionable quality.
     
  3. I like my little a6000 Sony a lot, small and can make very sharp images with extras like facial recognition. I don't have the 16-50mm lens but have seen some very good work done with it. I opted for the excellent Sony 35mm 1.8 and the 55-210mm zoom which isn't bad for that length range. I'm looking at getting the Sigma 19mm and 60mm to give me the 28mm to 90mm equivalent force lengths that I used to use on my Leica RF cameras. The a6000 has an amazing amount of technology in a small package and my only real complaint about it is that I have to put on my glasses to change settings. The a6500 is probably a newer better camera with increased image quality and functionality for a price, neither of which I need very much having the a6000.
     
  4. Thank you!
    I discovered that one of the cameras I was looking at was actually an a5000 ticketed wrongly - so that one's off the menu.

    The news about the 16-50 kit lens is a bit disappointing. I might consider a body only option then.

    Thanks again.
     
  5. The 16-50mm isn't that bad, depending on your intended output. I captured the image below with that lens on a NEX6. It looks fine online and on a not-too-large print. If I were to pixel peep this image at full magnification or if I were to make a very large print, then the imperfections do start to show, especially with the NEX6 (which was not a bad body, although the A6XXX bodies are better higher spec bodies).

    [​IMG]
     
    jerry_wilson|3 and Allen Herbert like this.
  6. Rodeo Joe -- Sony mirrorless are great. Here's what I like:

    1. Bodies are small and work great. I have the A6000 and A6500. Differences are correctly described above. 6000 is a great entry point for the system. AF, viewfinder, all are great. OSS image stabilization in Sony lenses is good. The A6500 has in-body stabilization that works with all lenses, including legacy manual focus lenses. Works very well.

    2. Sony lenses are not bad. Including the 16-50 for small size, but I prefer the 18-55 for handling. Note they are doing software distortion correction which works quite well in the body. Lightroom's distortion correction for these lenses is good.

    3. The real prize is the Zeiss glass. 24 f/1.8 E lens (i.e. APS) and 55 f/1.8 FE lens (portrait lens for APS, normal on a full-frame A7)

    4. Sony is the universal digital back for all legacy lenses. Converters available for everything. Sony's focus peaking and magnification work well for MF. I like it better than Fuji's.

    Hope this helps. I don't know about or have experience with the 16-70 Zeiss, the 70-200 or the more expensive G Master lenses.
     
  7. Thanks for that. Those all sound like features I would use - apart from the distortion correction. I shoot RAW for anything serious, and would rather use low distortion lenses to begin with.

    Still torn between testing the water with an a6000, or jumping straight in with a used A7Rii.
     
  8. IMHO, testing the waters with the somewhat outdated a6000 (released 2014) isn't going to tell you much - especially if ultimately you want to go to full frame. Maybe rent a A7RII for a week or two and test the waters that way?

    The recent releases as well as which older cameras did and did not get firmware updates to me paints a clear picture that Sony is putting emphasis on the higher-priced FX market - notably with the A7RIII and the A9. The next step "down" would be the A7RII.
     
  9. Thanks Dieter.
    Although I'm ultimately intending to get a 'full-frame' MILC - funds permitting - I also fancy something small and lightweight with decent IQ. So the a6000/a7Rii isn't really an either/or situation, more a 'which first'.

    I have a little Nikon P6000 that's showing its age. The a6000 would be a definite step up from that. And only one letter difference in the model number!
     
  10. I started my dive into mirrorless with the NEX-6 (same form factor as the A6000). Fine if used with small lenses, not so much with bigger glass. Liked to use it with the Voigtlander 21/4P and had purchased the Zeiss 24/1.8 pretty much the same week I got pulled into purchasing an A7 (for which I traded-in the NEX-6). For a P6000 replacement - why not look at one of the Sony RX100 models? Anything with interchangeable lenses isn't going to be really small (aka, fit into a pocket).

    Sometimes I think about getting a RX-10 for walkaround instead of hauling a big-ass DSLR. Then I remind myself that most likely I would then be carrying the RX-10 AND the big-ass DSLR:D
     

Share This Page